Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barge of the Dead/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2017 [1].

Barge of the Dead edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! This article is about an episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. It is the third episode of the sixth season and was first broadcast by UPN on October 6, 1999. In this episode, the half-Klingon, half-human B'Elanna Torres (Roxann Dawson) has a near-death experience and is sent to the Klingon version of Hell known as Gre'thor. There she encounters her mother Miral (Karen Austin), who is damned because of Torres' refusal to fully accept her identity as a Klingon. After being resuscitated by the Voyager crew, Torres becomes intent on revisiting Gre'thor to save her mother.

Moore originally developed the episode as part of a pitch for the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Soldiers of the Empire". Following the episode's completion, both Moore and Fuller left the series because of dissatisfaction with their lack of control over its direction, and the absence of strong story arcs across multiple episodes. Critical response to the episode was mixed; some television critics praised the focus on Torres and Dawson's performance, while others were more critical of the representation of Klingon spirituality.

I enjoyed working on this article; I found the premise for this episode to be really interesting as I always like bizarre character studies, even if the final result was not so great. I believe that it satisfies all of the FA criteria. I look forward to hearing your feedback and growing as a writer and a Wikipedia contributor. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- hi Aoba, just a reminder that FAC instructions usually require you to wait two weeks between a nomination being archived and another being nominated; don't worry in this case because there's only a few days in it and your previous nom received little commentary, more for future reference... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your message! I will definitely remember that in the future; I hope that you are having a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

nuqneH! Not my favourite episode, but I do remember it well.

  • "The episode received a Nielsen rating of 3.8/6 ratings share" Repetition, and I confess that I don't really know what this means.
  • I have added a source to fully explain this in the body of the article, and I have revised the lead to make it a little clearer. Television ratings numbers are always unnecessarily complicated to me lol. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think at the first mention of the Klingon artifact you should make clear just how far Voyager is from Klingon space!
  • Added in a sentence about this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a bit of ambiguity (and I can't remember the answer): is the Barge taking B'Elanna to Gre'thor, or is she in Gre'thor when she's on the barge? You seem to suggest both in the article.
  • I think that the barge is taking her to Gre'thor so I have made the adjustments to hopefully make that a little clearer, but let me know if it needs further clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she is allowed to move on Sto-vo-kor" Perhaps an explanation of Sto-vo-kor would be a good addition?
  • "Miral informs Torres that she cannot release her into Sto-vo-kor until she completes her journey." Lots of shes and hers; could this be clarified?
  • Revised to hopefully be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Torres surrenders when confronted by Tuvok" What does this mean?
  • "Torres is resuscitated and embraced by Janeway." Maybe I'm imagining it, but did the episode not end with B'Elanna doing some Klingon things to get in touch with her heritage?
  • To the best of my knowledge, the episode ends (rather abruptly) with Torres waking up from the coma and being greeted by Janeway. While I think ending the episode on Torres doing something Klingon by herself would have been more appropriate, I do not think it happens. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You twice refer to a teleplay being directed; this seems unnatural to me. I'd be inclined to say that an episode based on a teleplay is directed.
  • " "Barge of the Dead" was also one of two episodes that featured Torres' relationship with her parents, with the season seven episodes "Lineage" and "Author, Author" resolving her estrangement from her father." That's three- or am I misunderstanding?
  • I just miscounted. I think I revised this sentence a few times, and just forgot to change the numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Scholar" is a bit vague; could you not be clearer about who the people you're quoting are?
  • "The episode received a Nielsen rating of 3.8/6 ratings share" As above
  • "by the absence of Fek'lhr" This needs to be explained!
  • Expanded slightly. The character Fek'lhr was already defined and discussed a little bit early in the article as well (I added a link there). Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what jumped out at me. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please check my edits! If I was writing this article (and I fully appreciate that this isn't the point of FAC!) I would consider breaking out some of the content, and especially the scholarly content, into an "Analysis" (or similar) section. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate the feedback, and I have made the necessary adjustments. I have also pulled out the scholarly content to turn it into its own section as I agree with you. It does not necessarily fall under "Production" so it works better as its own thing. I look forward to hearing back from you. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more bits:

  • I've made some more tweaks; do please make sure you're happy with them.
  • Thank you! They have definitely improved the article a great deal. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the guest stars be mentioned in the production section? They're currently mentioned in the lead and the infobox, but not in the article proper.
  • Perhaps you could add some pictures? Some suggestions (which you certainly don't have to use): We have a nice image of Dawson that could be included (perhaps as a crop) in the reception section and/or we could probably find a nice painting or some such of the Styx or the Bifröst for the analysis section.
  • Added the image of Dawson to the "Reception" section, and a river Styx image to the "Analysis" section. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kraemer & Cassidy & Schwartz (2009)". Could we have page numbers? Also, would "Kraemer, Cassidy, & Schwartz (2009)" not be more standard?
  • Revised, and unfortunately the copy of the book that I used on GoogleBooks did not have page numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your short footnotes are linked to the longer references, others aren't.
  • Not sure how I missed that. I believe that I have connected them all. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. I am looking forward to your responses. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, providing there are no issues with sourcing (I see there's some backing-and-forthing below). I think the information about the MMORPG is slightly misplaced, but I can't see an easy home for it, and I think there's a tiny bit of ambiguity about whether Torres is in Gre'thor or going to it, but I'm not going to hold up support on that. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Miyagawa edit

Thanks to J for pinging me a message to say that this is here. I thought I'd take a gander, since I've had no involvement in this article previously. As with J, I do recall this one - specifically the barge set. I'm sure I read some interesting thing about the barge set somewhere... it might have been while digging out the Star Trek: Enterprise stuff from archived versions of StarTrek.com or the designer's blogs. Regardless, I only found them by accident, and I wouldn't even know where to start to find them again!

  • No duplicate links detected (although my checker is blending the lead with the body of the article - I'll have to update that).
  • I did a quick look around for a better cite than an Amazon link for the Fan Collection, and found this: [2]. I also found a further review/ranking at Den of Geek here: [3].
  • Makes sense; I have replaced the Amazon link with the IGN one. The Den of Geek source was already in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also might be worth adding that the Barge makes an appearance in Star Trek Online - and I've found an independent source for that: [4]. Admittedly it's slightly odd, as the author writes specifically about his character's journey, rather than noting that all characters have the same journey. But it does mention the appearance of the barge itself.
  • I have added it to the article; I do agree that it was described slightly odd in the text. Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Miyagawa (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Miyagawa: Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed everything, and I am looking forward to your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Freikorp edit

  • Can you take a screenshot from the episode and add it to the infobox? This would be of interest, but it won't affect whether I support or not.
    • I respectfully disagree with this suggestion. While it is generally assumed that a single cover/poster image is acceptable for an infobox in articles about films, this does not extend to screenshots in infoboxes in episode articles. There is no ban on screenshot images, of course, but there's no assumption in favour of them. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your input J. Milburn and for your suggestion Freikorp. I agree with Milburn on this, as it is frequently enforced that an article should have as little non-free resources as possible. I have only included one screenshot in an episode article in the past as there was a lot of critical and cast commentary on that particular moment to warrant a non-free resource. For instance, if there was a lot of critical or behind-the-scenes commentary on the barge set, then it would warrant a screenshot of the barge, but there does not appear to be enough to support adding a non-free image. I hope that is understandable, and thank you again for the suggestion. 16:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Freikorp (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Torres sees this emitting blood and voices speaking" - should this read 'see this emitting blood and hears voices speaking'?
  • Your image of Dawson could include when the photo was taken. I.e Roxann Dawson, pictured in 2003, was praised for her performance.
  • "Some television critics responded positively to Dawson's performance" - 'Some' implies that not all of them responded positively. Where are the negative reviews? If there aren't any, I suggest dropping the word 'Some'.
  • What makes 'cultofwhatever.com', 'jammersreviews.com' and 'trektoday.com' high-quality sources? They look like they might not even pass WP:RS to me.
    • I believe that TrekToday and Jammer's Reviews are acceptable as I have used both in a previous nomination ("Faces" (Star Trek: Voyager) without an issue, but I do welcome more discussion about these two sources. I believe that TrekToday should be fine as it looks like it has some form of oversight/editing, but I understand the concern about Jammer's Reviews as it is more of a blog-formatted site from a single author/writer. I have removed CultofWhatever as it did not add too much to the overall article anyway. I am looking forward to your feedback on this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well written. That's all I found. Freikorp (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Freikorp: Thank you for your comments; I believe that I have addressed everything above. I am looking forward to your responses and I hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagarwal edit

How did I miss this? :P

  • File:Doré - Styx.jpg Needs a description template. Also, I think the PD-Art use is to be specified (as mentioned below the image).
  • @Adityavagarwal: I am not sure how to fix that necessarily (I haven't used that many images in my previous FAs). I have replaced it with a different image that seems more complete (I just wanted one with the barge on the river Styx to connect with the episode's title and featured location if that makes any sense). A color image is also nice. Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is all, rest seem amazing! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Adityavagarwal: If possible, could you also do a source review for this? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so, but I was just curious. Hope you had a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Definitely yes! Yeah, I had a great weakend, I hope you had the same (or even greater)! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I am glad to hear it! I got a lot of work done so I am happy. And thank you for your help as always. Please feel free to let me know if there is anything that I can do to help with any of your projects. While I may not be able to do any heavy-lifting as I am trying to limit my time on here to be more productive irl, I would be more than happy to help with anything you need. Aoba47 (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would let you know! Also, it would be great if you would ask me if you needed help with any other of your projects in the future too (would instantly try to help you out, or if I am at university, would try to help you out by that night)! I hope you have a good great rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl edit

  • "There she encounters her mother Miral (Karen Austin), who is damned because of Torres' refusal to fully accept her identity as a Klingon." Maybe "her Klingon mother"? And make clear "her identity as a Klingon" is a reference to Torres herself rather than her mother. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a bat'leth," - provide a few extra words explaining what a bat'leth is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Klingon Drinking Songs" - No need for the upper-case, change to "Klingon drinking songs". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miral identifies as the first step in her path" - "Miral identifies this as the first step in her path"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seen the starship Rotarran" - "seen the Klingon starship Rotarran"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a link to Star Trek: The Next Generation at its first appearance in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When citing Kraemer, Cassidy, & Schwartz, make sure that you include page numbers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the version of the book that I consulted through GoogleBooks does not have page numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Midnightblueowl: Thank you for your help! I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. I am looking forward to your further comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panagiotis Zois edit

  • When you say that the story was developed by Moore and Fuller, instead of saying that Fuller wrote the script in the next sentence can't you simply say "and Bryan Fuller, who wrote the the teleplay." I guess if you make that change it would also be best to include Vejar in the same sentence.
  • Makes sense to me; I have revised the sentence accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot, shouldn't it say "since the USS Voyager"? Or is that unnecessary for ships?
  • Added "the" as I think it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of the ship, you have it linked twice in the first paragraph.
  • Not sure how that happened lol; I have removed the extra link. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that the first paragraph is a coma-induced dream so not everything makes sense but after Tuvok attack Torres does the scene simply transition from the fight to the mess hall?
  • I added in a small portion to help with the transition. Tuvok dismissed Torres as dishonored and then it cuts to the scenes in the mess hall. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't something major but I noticed when referring to characters you use their last names. Is this because the characters are referred to by their last names in the series?
  • For articles on fictional material, characters are typically referenced by their last names unless there are multiple characters with the same last name. In that instance, the characters would be referenced by their first names to avoid confusion. That seems to be the expectation on here when it comes to that, but I think that either way is accepted as long as it is consistent throughout. It has more to do with Wikipedia than the actual show itself. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of adding "deadurl=no" to most of the online references as they were all still active. If you don't like that I can change them back. I also added an archive date to The Futon Critic as it lacked one and changed the archive of IGN as it kept sending me to Wayback Machine and saying "this url hasn't been saved". The current one is from Archive.is
  • Thank you for the help there. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually a really great article to read, not just because it's well written but also because the themes presented are pretty interesting. Great work. :D PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your help, and I am glad that you found it interesting. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments, and I am looking forward to your responses. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, now that my comments have been adressed I can support this nomination. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Adityavagarwal edit

Looking now... Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On prose:

  • May I know why ion storm is linked to solar wind? Unable to grab the point.
  • Good point. The term "ion storm" was something created for Star Trek, but I think that the closest equivalent would be geomagnetic storm so I have substituted the links. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double checked the article. It might well be the best FACs I have ever reviewed (no scope to nitpick either)!

On source review:

  • Double checked the sources, and everything is good! No issues whatsoever. Good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate your input and support on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support on prose, and sources are also good! A very-well written article. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64 edit

  • Thank you for pointing this out. I am not sure how I missed that one lol. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, really. This was a neat article to read. I don't know much about Star Trek but I will try to watch some of it. Cheers! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheJoebro64: Thank you for commenting on this. I honestly have only seen Voyager so I also not that familiar with the franchise. Someday, I will watch more of the installments, specifically Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Have a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Status Update edit

@Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: I would greatly appreciate it if I could have a status update for this nomination. It has received an image review and a status review and I believe that it also has received enough attention/feedback for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Freikorp raised a couple of sourcing issues above that were never really addressed. The specific questions were what makes jammersreviews.com and trektoday.com reliable sources. I don't think the nominator's reply really answered this. I would also be inclined to question www.thefutoncritic.com, and would be interested to know Ealdgyth's opinion on the sourcing of this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sarastro1: Thank you for the response! I did provide a response to that question raised by Freikorp, so I am not sure what you mean by that. I have removed the Jammer's Review source as I agree that its blog format may not be appropriate for a featured article. I believe that TrekToday should be acceptable though. It was deemed acceptable for my previous FAC for Faces, and I have seen TrekNation, which is closely associated with TrekToday, used as a source in other featured articles on Star Trek material/content. Here is a page from the website itself 1, which shows that there are multiple people/editors working on the site and its content. Here are some places where TrekToday have been cited in outside media/outlets: 1234567. I think that the source is given more credibility in that other outlets include information from their editors and writers when discussing Star Trek-related material. I do not see any issues with using Futon Critic as it primarily publishes presses releases. In this context, I have only used Futon Critic to cite their definition of the Nielsen Rating system, as that was a question posed by one of the reviewers above, so I believe it should be okay for use in a featured article for this particular purpose. Thank you again for the reply. I would also be interested in hearing from @Ian Rose: about this as well. Aoba47 (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking sources While TrekDoday might seems as a fansite, it appears to be reliable based on its connections with the popular UGO Networks and Los Angeles Times. Amazon was also a bit controversial in early 2017, but the apparent consensus appears to be that it can be used in Wikipedia though first party sources might be better. Other than that, I can't find any unreliable source so I think it should pass its source review.Tintor2 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for helping out with this. Please let me know if ever need any help with any of your projects. I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your day. I will try to be more aware of the sources that I use in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarastro1: Just wanted to ping you to get your response to this as I have provided a comment to your original post, and another editor/user has provided input on the use of the TrekToday source. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, real life is a little hectic at the moment! I should do another run through FAC either tomorrow or Wednesday at the latest, if Ian doesn't get there first. I'll look at this again then. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the replay, and I apologize for the constant messages. I hope that everything in real life is going well, and good luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera edit

  • I realize I'm a little late to the party, but everything looks pretty good here. However, for Ref #19, is that the correct year? I see there are multiple editions available and I don't think 1995 chronologically makes sense since the episode aired in 1999. That should be about all for now. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Closing comment: I'm not entirely convinced about those sites, but I think you have just about persuaded me they are reliable enough. In an ideal world, I'd like a better source or two, but until one becomes available, I think they are acceptable. One point for future reference though; just because a source came through one FAC does not mean it cannot be challenged in another. Aside from these issues, I think we have a clear consensus so I don't propose to hold this up any further. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Barge_of_the_Dead/archive1&oldid=800506779"